linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] PCI: rockchip: Remove redundant PCIe message routing definitions

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250620154202.GA1292011@bhelgaas>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 10:42:02 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To: Hans Zhang <18255117159@....com>
Cc: lpieralisi@...nel.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com, kwilczynski@...nel.org,
	shawn.lin@...k-chips.com, heiko@...ech.de, robh@...nel.org,
	linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] PCI: rockchip: Remove redundant PCIe message routing
 definitions

On Sat, Jun 07, 2025 at 11:49:13PM +0800, Hans Zhang wrote:
> The Rockchip driver contained duplicated message routing and INTx code
> definitions (e.g., ROCKCHIP_PCIE_MSG_ROUTING_TO_RC,
> ROCKCHIP_PCIE_MSG_CODE_ASSERT_INTA). These are already provided by the
> PCI core in drivers/pci/pci.h as PCIE_MSG_TYPE_R_RC and
> PCIE_MSG_CODE_ASSERT_INTA, respectively.
> 
> Remove the driver-specific definitions and use the common PCIe macros
> instead. This aligns the driver with the PCIe specification and reduces
> maintenance overhead.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hans Zhang <18255117159@....com>
> ---
>  drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip.h | 14 --------------
>  1 file changed, 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip.h b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip.h
> index 5864a20323f2..12bc8da59d73 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip.h
> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip.h
> @@ -215,20 +215,6 @@
>  #define RC_REGION_0_TYPE_MASK			GENMASK(3, 0)
>  #define MAX_AXI_WRAPPER_REGION_NUM		33
>  
> -#define ROCKCHIP_PCIE_MSG_ROUTING_TO_RC		0x0
> -#define ROCKCHIP_PCIE_MSG_ROUTING_VIA_ADDR		0x1
> -#define ROCKCHIP_PCIE_MSG_ROUTING_VIA_ID		0x2
> -#define ROCKCHIP_PCIE_MSG_ROUTING_BROADCAST		0x3
> -#define ROCKCHIP_PCIE_MSG_ROUTING_LOCAL_INTX		0x4
> -#define ROCKCHIP_PCIE_MSG_ROUTING_PME_ACK		0x5
> -#define ROCKCHIP_PCIE_MSG_CODE_ASSERT_INTA		0x20
> -#define ROCKCHIP_PCIE_MSG_CODE_ASSERT_INTB		0x21
> -#define ROCKCHIP_PCIE_MSG_CODE_ASSERT_INTC		0x22
> -#define ROCKCHIP_PCIE_MSG_CODE_ASSERT_INTD		0x23
> -#define ROCKCHIP_PCIE_MSG_CODE_DEASSERT_INTA		0x24
> -#define ROCKCHIP_PCIE_MSG_CODE_DEASSERT_INTB		0x25
> -#define ROCKCHIP_PCIE_MSG_CODE_DEASSERT_INTC		0x26
> -#define ROCKCHIP_PCIE_MSG_CODE_DEASSERT_INTD		0x27

Thanks for doing this!  In fact, these definitions are not only
redundant, they're not even used at all.

>  #define ROCKCHIP_PCIE_MSG_ROUTING_MASK			GENMASK(7, 5)
>  #define ROCKCHIP_PCIE_MSG_ROUTING(route) \
>  	(((route) << 5) & ROCKCHIP_PCIE_MSG_ROUTING_MASK)

And neither are these ROUTING and CODE definitions.